Eugenio De Corso, Davide Paolo Porru, Marco Corbò, Claudio Montuori, Gabriele De Maio, Rodolfo Francesco Mastrapasqua, Marco Panfili, Camilla Spanu, Giuseppe Alberto Di Bella, Giuseppe D'Agostino, Alberta Rizzuti, Giulio Cesare Passali, Jacopo Galli
{"title":"Comparative real-world outcomes of dupilumab versus endoscopic sinus surgery in the treatment of severe CRSwNP patients","authors":"Eugenio De Corso, Davide Paolo Porru, Marco Corbò, Claudio Montuori, Gabriele De Maio, Rodolfo Francesco Mastrapasqua, Marco Panfili, Camilla Spanu, Giuseppe Alberto Di Bella, Giuseppe D'Agostino, Alberta Rizzuti, Giulio Cesare Passali, Jacopo Galli","doi":"10.1111/coa.14172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Management of severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has changed significantly in recent years, with different treatments now available including biologics and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although there are still few comparative studies. We aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of patients with severe CRSwNP treated with dupilumab or ESS plus intranasal corticosteroids (INCS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In this retrospective, real-life, observational, cohort study, we enrolled 101 patients with severe CRSwNP who were treated with INCS and either ESS (<i>n</i> = 49) or dupilumab (<i>n</i> = 52). The following outcomes were considered: nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), visual analogue scale (VAS) for specific symptoms, Sniffin' Sticks identification test (SSIT), need for oral corticosteroids (OCS) and local eosinophilia detected by nasal cytology.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>ΔNPS was significantly higher in the surgery group up to 12 months when the difference with dupilumab group was no longer significant (ΔNPS: 4 vs. 4.1). ΔVAS rhinorrhoea, ΔVAS smell and ΔSNOT-22 were significantly higher in the dupilumab group at 12 months (<i>p</i> < .05). SSIT scores were significantly better in the dupilumab group starting from the first month of follow-up (<i>p</i> < .05). In the dupilumab group, only 6.1% of patients had detectable local eosinophilia compared to 57% in the surgery group alongside with a lower need for OCS (16.3% vs. 61%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Both dupilumab and ESS were effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe CRSwNP over 12 months. Nevertheless, patients treated with dupilumab had greater improvement in terms of SNOT-22, VAS rhinorrhoea, VAS smell and SSIT scores, with better control of local inflammation and less need for OCS.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10431,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Otolaryngology","volume":"49 4","pages":"481-489"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/coa.14172","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Management of severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has changed significantly in recent years, with different treatments now available including biologics and endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS), although there are still few comparative studies. We aimed to compare 1-year outcomes of patients with severe CRSwNP treated with dupilumab or ESS plus intranasal corticosteroids (INCS).
Methods
In this retrospective, real-life, observational, cohort study, we enrolled 101 patients with severe CRSwNP who were treated with INCS and either ESS (n = 49) or dupilumab (n = 52). The following outcomes were considered: nasal polyp score (NPS), Sino Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22), visual analogue scale (VAS) for specific symptoms, Sniffin' Sticks identification test (SSIT), need for oral corticosteroids (OCS) and local eosinophilia detected by nasal cytology.
Results
ΔNPS was significantly higher in the surgery group up to 12 months when the difference with dupilumab group was no longer significant (ΔNPS: 4 vs. 4.1). ΔVAS rhinorrhoea, ΔVAS smell and ΔSNOT-22 were significantly higher in the dupilumab group at 12 months (p < .05). SSIT scores were significantly better in the dupilumab group starting from the first month of follow-up (p < .05). In the dupilumab group, only 6.1% of patients had detectable local eosinophilia compared to 57% in the surgery group alongside with a lower need for OCS (16.3% vs. 61%).
Conclusions
Both dupilumab and ESS were effective in improving outcomes in patients with severe CRSwNP over 12 months. Nevertheless, patients treated with dupilumab had greater improvement in terms of SNOT-22, VAS rhinorrhoea, VAS smell and SSIT scores, with better control of local inflammation and less need for OCS.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Otolaryngology is a bimonthly journal devoted to clinically-oriented research papers of the highest scientific standards dealing with:
current otorhinolaryngological practice
audiology, otology, balance, rhinology, larynx, voice and paediatric ORL
head and neck oncology
head and neck plastic and reconstructive surgery
continuing medical education and ORL training
The emphasis is on high quality new work in the clinical field and on fresh, original research.
Each issue begins with an editorial expressing the personal opinions of an individual with a particular knowledge of a chosen subject. The main body of each issue is then devoted to original papers carrying important results for those working in the field. In addition, topical review articles are published discussing a particular subject in depth, including not only the opinions of the author but also any controversies surrounding the subject.
• Negative/null results
In order for research to advance, negative results, which often make a valuable contribution to the field, should be published. However, articles containing negative or null results are frequently not considered for publication or rejected by journals. We welcome papers of this kind, where appropriate and valid power calculations are included that give confidence that a negative result can be relied upon.